Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1988J& K55
ORDERG.A. Kuchhai, J. 1. This application under Order 33. C.P.C. is by the applicant against the respondent her husband to sue in forma pauperis for recovery of property and money mentioned in the application.2. The applicant, has pleaded being wedded wife of the respondent, who has turned her out for not satisfying his demand for additional dowry. She having no sufficient means to defer the expenses of Court-fees on her claim of Rs. 1,54,874/- having to feed her children in the house of her parents and having no means therefore, seeking declaration to sue as an indigent person, the applicant has filed schedule of the property along with the application supported by an affidavit.3. The respondent ultimately appeared and filed his objections to the application for declaring the applicant as an indigent person objecting to the maintainability of the application, same being not in accordance with law and the applicant being a Govt. servant receiving a salary of Rs. 1000/- having G. P. Fun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1988J& K62
ORDERG.A. Kuchhai, J. 1. In this revision petition, the petitioner/defendant challenges an order dated 24-5-86 whereby in a suit for dissolution of marriage, the petitioner has been directed to submit for medical examination before Medical Board.2. The relevant facts of the case run : that the respondent-wife brought a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner-her husband before the trial Court and the preliminary issue regarding potency of the petitioner was framed by the Court below on 9-5-1985 to the effect whether the petitioner/husband is a potent and on the same date the petitioner was directed to get himself examined by the Medical Board. The onus of proving issue was cast on the plaintiff. 3. The petitioner appears to have been medically examined and a certificate issued by the Board. At the trial, the trial Court summoned the Medical Superintendent for examination whose presence could not be procured and another order impugned dated 24-5-1986 has been passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1988J& K60
ORDERM.L. Bhat, J. 1. An issue regarding territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act brought by the respondent herein against the petitioner was decided by the District Judge against the petitioner herein and District Judge assumed the jurisdiction to try the petition. The burden of proving this issue was on the respondent, who is petitioner in the trial Court. He has not produced any evidence with regard to the issue burden whereof was on him. Petitioner, who is respondent before the trial Court has adduced evidence. After discussing the evidence the learned District Judge has been of the opinion that since there was an admission on the part of the petitioner herein that she along with the respondent remained in Jammu for ten days in the year 1974, therefore that would amount to their last residing together at Jammu, and the Court at.Jammu had the jurisdiction. This finding was seriously contested by Mr. T. S. Thakur appearing for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ582
A.S. Anand, C.J. and R.P. Sethi, J.1. The point of law on which the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench differed in their opinion is : whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI) constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the 1946 Act) has jurisdiction to investigate cases under the Ranbir Penal Code and the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (for short the P.C. Act) and to file the final report before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption in a case where one of the accused is an Indian Army Officer? Whereas Brother Bhat, J. held that it does not, Brother Sethi J. held otherwise. In view of this divergence of opinion the case has been referred to me.2. The question being essentially legal, reference to some salient facts would suffice.According to the prosecution case the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 120-B, R.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!